# Non-overrideable verbs

Andrew Ayre (A.J.Ayre@e-eng.hull.ac.uk)
Tue, 30 Jul 1996 01:07:15 PDT

- Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

    On Mon, 29 Jul 1996, RICHARD JACOB CONNAMACHER wrote:

    > 1) A database transition would, in fact, be neccessary, because verbs
    > are, in LambdaCORE< defined "rw" by default, so new verbs would be
    > defined as non-overridable by default, which is IMHO a bad thing.  I
    > would use 'p' (protected) or 'n' (non-overidable) as the perm for a
    > non-overridable verb, and it has to be on for the verb to be overridable.

    Why not have o for overridable and !o for non-overridable, then the verbs
    would be overidable by default.

    Andy.
                                                            \|/
                                                           (. .)
    ----------------------------------------------------o00-(_)-00o-----
    The closer you look the closer you get.
    telnet sun1.newport.ac.uk 7777
    http://whirligig.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~aij295/groover
    --------------------------------------------------------------------